Study of Race, Crime, and Social Policy in Oakland, California, 1976-1982 (ICPSR 9961)

Principal Investigator(s):
Street, Lloyd, Cornell University

Summary:

In 1980, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant
to the Cornell University College of Human Ecology for the
establishment of the Center for the Study of Race, Crime, and Social
Policy in Oakland, California. This center mounted a long-term
research project that sought to explain the wide variation in crime
statistics by race and ethnicity. Using information from eight ethnic
communities in Oakland, California, representing working- and
middle-class Black, White, Chinese, and Hispanic groups, as well as
additional data from Oakland's justice systems and local
organizations, the center conducted empirical research to describe the
criminalization process and to explore the relationship between race
and crime. The differences in observed patterns and levels of crime
were analyzed in terms of: (1) the abilities of local ethnic
communities to contribute to, resist, neutralize, or otherwise affect
the criminalization of its members, (2) the impacts of criminal
justice policies on ethnic communities and their members, and (3) the
cumulative impacts of criminal justice agency decisions on the
processing of individuals in the system. Administrative records data
were gathered from two sources, the Alameda County Criminal Oriented
Records Production System (CORPUS) (Part 1) and the Oakland District
Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) (Part 2). In addition to
collecting administrative data, the researchers also surveyed
residents (Part 3), police officers (Part 4), and public defenders and
district attorneys (Part 5). The eight study areas included a middle-
and low-income pair of census tracts for each of the four
racial/ethnic groups: white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Part 1,
Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) Data, contains
information on offenders' most serious felony and misdemeanor arrests,
dispositions, offense codes, bail arrangements, fines, jail terms, and
pleas for both current and prior arrests in Alameda
County. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital
status. Variables in Part 2, District Attorney Legal Information
System (DALITE) Data, include current and prior charges, days from
offense to charge, disposition, and arrest, plea agreement conditions,
final results from both municipal court and superior court, sentence
outcomes, date and outcome of arraignment, disposition, and sentence,
number and type of enhancements, numbers of convictions, mistrials,
acquittals, insanity pleas, and dismissals, and factors that
determined the prison term. For Part 3, Oakland Community Crime Survey
Data, researchers interviewed 1,930 Oakland residents from eight
communities. Information was gathered from community residents on the
quality of schools, shopping, and transportation in their
neighborhoods, the neighborhood's racial composition, neighborhood
problems, such as noise, abandoned buildings, and drugs, level of
crime in the neighborhood, chances of being victimized, how
respondents would describe certain types of criminals in terms of age,
race, education, and work history, community involvement, crime
prevention measures, the performance of the police, judges, and
attorneys, victimization experiences, and fear of certain types of
crimes. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and family
status. For Part 4, Oakland Police Department Survey Data, Oakland
County police officers were asked about why they joined the police
force, how they perceived their role, aspects of a good and a bad
police officer, why they believed crime was down, and how they would
describe certain beats in terms of drug availability, crime rates,
socioeconomic status, number of juveniles, potential for violence,
residential versus commercial, and degree of danger. Officers were
also asked about problems particular neighborhoods were experiencing,
strategies for reducing crime, difficulties in doing police work well,
and work conditions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race,
marital status, level of education, and years on the force. In Part 5,
Public Defender/District Attorney Survey Data, public defenders and
district attorneys were queried regarding which offenses were
increasing most rapidly in Oakland, and they were asked to rank
certain offenses in terms of seriousness. Respondents were also asked
about the public's influence on criminal justice agencies and on the
performance of certain criminal justice agencies. Respondents were
presented with a list of crimes and asked how typical these offenses
were and what factors influenced their decisions about such cases
(e.g., intent, motive, evidence, behavior, prior history, injury or
loss, substance abuse, emotional trauma). Other variables measured how
often and under what circumstances the public defender and client and
the public defender and the district attorney agreed on the case,
defendant characteristics in terms of who should not be put on the
stand, the effects of Proposition 8, public defender and district
attorney plea guidelines, attorney discretion, and advantageous and
disadvantageous characteristics of a defendant. Demographic variables
include age, sex, race, marital status, religion, years of experience,
and area of responsibility.

In 1980, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant
to the Cornell University College of Human Ecology for the
establishment of the Center for the Study of Race, Crime, and Social
Policy in Oakland, California. This center mounted a long-term
research project that sought to explain the wide variation in crime
statistics by race and ethnicity. Using information from eight ethnic
communities in Oakland, California, representing working- and
middle-class Black, White, Chinese, and Hispanic groups, as well as
additional data from Oakland's justice systems and local
organizations, the center conducted empirical research to describe the
criminalization process and to explore the relationship between race
and crime. The differences in observed patterns and levels of crime
were analyzed in terms of: (1) the abilities of local ethnic
communities to contribute to, resist, neutralize, or otherwise affect
the criminalization of its members, (2) the impacts of criminal
justice policies on ethnic communities and their members, and (3) the
cumulative impacts of criminal justice agency decisions on the
processing of individuals in the system. Administrative records data
were gathered from two sources, the Alameda County Criminal Oriented
Records Production System (CORPUS) (Part 1) and the Oakland District
Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) (Part 2). In addition to
collecting administrative data, the researchers also surveyed
residents (Part 3), police officers (Part 4), and public defenders and
district attorneys (Part 5). The eight study areas included a middle-
and low-income pair of census tracts for each of the four
racial/ethnic groups: white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Part 1,
Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) Data, contains
information on offenders' most serious felony and misdemeanor arrests,
dispositions, offense codes, bail arrangements, fines, jail terms, and
pleas for both current and prior arrests in Alameda
County. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital
status. Variables in Part 2, District Attorney Legal Information
System (DALITE) Data, include current and prior charges, days from
offense to charge, disposition, and arrest, plea agreement conditions,
final results from both municipal court and superior court, sentence
outcomes, date and outcome of arraignment, disposition, and sentence,
number and type of enhancements, numbers of convictions, mistrials,
acquittals, insanity pleas, and dismissals, and factors that
determined the prison term. For Part 3, Oakland Community Crime Survey
Data, researchers interviewed 1,930 Oakland residents from eight
communities. Information was gathered from community residents on the
quality of schools, shopping, and transportation in their
neighborhoods, the neighborhood's racial composition, neighborhood
problems, such as noise, abandoned buildings, and drugs, level of
crime in the neighborhood, chances of being victimized, how
respondents would describe certain types of criminals in terms of age,
race, education, and work history, community involvement, crime
prevention measures, the performance of the police, judges, and
attorneys, victimization experiences, and fear of certain types of
crimes. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and family
status. For Part 4, Oakland Police Department Survey Data, Oakland
County police officers were asked about why they joined the police
force, how they perceived their role, aspects of a good and a bad
police officer, why they believed crime was down, and how they would
describe certain beats in terms of drug availability, crime rates,
socioeconomic status, number of juveniles, potential for violence,
residential versus commercial, and degree of danger. Officers were
also asked about problems particular neighborhoods were experiencing,
strategies for reducing crime, difficulties in doing police work well,
and work conditions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race,
marital status, level of education, and years on the force. In Part 5,
Public Defender/District Attorney Survey Data, public defenders and
district attorneys were queried regarding which offenses were
increasing most rapidly in Oakland, and they were asked to rank
certain offenses in terms of seriousness. Respondents were also asked
about the public's influence on criminal justice agencies and on the
performance of certain criminal justice agencies. Respondents were
presented with a list of crimes and asked how typical these offenses
were and what factors influenced their decisions about such cases
(e.g., intent, motive, evidence, behavior, prior history, injury or
loss, substance abuse, emotional trauma). Other variables measured how
often and under what circumstances the public defender and client and
the public defender and the district attorney agreed on the case,
defendant characteristics in terms of who should not be put on the
stand, the effects of Proposition 8, public defender and district
attorney plea guidelines, attorney discretion, and advantageous and
disadvantageous characteristics of a defendant. Demographic variables
include age, sex, race, marital status, religion, years of experience,
and area of responsibility.

Access Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Study Description

Citation

Street, Lloyd. Study of Race, Crime, and Social Policy in Oakland, California, 1976-1982. ICPSR09961-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2000. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09961.v1

Universe:
Part 1: Offenders in Alameda County, California. Part 2:
Offenders in Oakland, California. Part 3: All residents in Oakland,
California. Part 4: All Oakland police officers. Part 5: All Oakland
public defenders and district attorneys.

Data Type(s):
administrative records data,
survey data

Data Collection Notes:

The original codebooks for Parts 1 and 2 and the
data collection instrument for Part 3 are included as part of the
documentation for this collection. Users are encouraged to refer to
these documents for a complete description of the data files.

The
data collection instruments and value labels for Parts 4 and 5 were
not supplied to ICPSR.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
In 1980, the National Institute of Justice
awarded a grant to the Cornell University College of Human Ecology for
the establishment of the Center for the Study of Race, Crime, and
Social Policy in Oakland, California. This center mounted a long-term
research project that sought to explain the wide variation in crime
statistics by race and ethnicity. Using information from eight ethnic
communities in Oakland, California, representing working- and
middle-class Black, white, Chinese, and Hispanic groups, as well as
additional data from Oakland's justice systems and local
organizations, the center conducted empirical research to describe the
criminalization process and to explore the relationship between race
and crime. The differences in observed patterns and levels of crime
were analyzed in terms of: (1) the abilities of local ethnic
communities to contribute to, resist, neutralize, or otherwise affect
the criminalization of its members, (2) the impacts of criminal
justice policies on ethnic communities and their members, and (3) the
cumulative impacts of criminal justice agency decisions on the
processing of individuals in the system.

Study Design:
For this study, the researchers made use of
multiple methods of measurement with different units of analysis and
different sets of variables. Administrative records data were gathered
from two sources, the Criminal Oriented Records Production System
(CORPUS) (Part 1) and the Oakland District Attorney Legal Information
System (DALITE) (Part 2). CORPUS is a recording system used for
tracking offenders through the criminal justice system in Alameda
County, California, that contains biographical data and other
information related to offenders' criminal activities. The original
CORPUS data were restructured by the investigators to make the
individual the unit of analysis and to facilitate merging with other
data sources. The DALITE data file tracks the progress of individual
offenders through the system from the time of arrest through
sentencing in Oakland, California. Data in this file are limited to
variables of interest and relevance to the Oakland District
Attorney. As such, there is a strong emphasis on charge information
with little information relative to arrest and none on the status or
biographic characteristics of the offender. Again, the original DALITE
data were restructured by the investigators to facilitate analyses. In
addition to collecting administrative data, the researchers also
surveyed residents, police officers, public defenders, and district
attorneys. Researchers surveyed 1,930 Oakland residents from eight
communities (Part 3). Subjects in the sample were contacted by
telephone and interviewed by 35 trained, multilingual
interviewers. There were 726 respondents representative of Oakland's
general population and 1,204 respondents representative of each of the
eight study areas interviewed. The eight study areas included a
middle- and low-income pair of census tracts for each of the four
racial/ethnic groups: white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. These census
tracts were selected on the basis of reviewing 1970 and 1980 census
data for Oakland. The design of the Oakland Police Department Survey
(Part 4) and the Public Defender/District Attorney Survey (Part 5) is
not known.

Part 1: Criminal Oriented Records Production System
from Alameda County, Part 2: District Attorney Legal Information
System, Part 3: Telephone interviews, Parts 4-5: Surveys

Description of Variables:
Part 1, Criminal Oriented Records Production System
(CORPUS) Data, contains information on offenders' most serious felony
and misdemeanor arrests, dispositions, offense codes, bail
arrangements, fines, jail terms, and pleas for both current and prior
arrests in Alameda County. Demographic variables include age, sex,
race, and marital status. Variables in Part 2, District Attorney Legal
Information System (DALITE) Data, include current and prior charges,
days from offense to charge, disposition, and arrest, plea agreement
conditions, final results from both municipal court and superior
court, sentence outcomes, date and outcome of arraignment,
disposition, and sentence, number and type of enhancements, numbers of
convictions, mistrials, acquittals, insanity pleas, and dismissals,
and factors that determined the prison term. Part 3, Oakland Community
Crime Survey Data, gathered information from community residents on
the quality of schools, shopping, and transportation in their
neighborhoods, the neighborhood's racial composition, neighborhood
problems, such as noise, abandoned buildings, and drugs, level of
crime in the neighborhood, chances of being victimized, how
respondents would describe certain types of criminals in terms of age,
race, education, and work history, community involvement, crime
prevention measures, the performance of the police, judges, and
attorneys, victimization experiences, and fear of certain types of
crimes. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and family
status. For Part 4, Oakland Police Department Survey Data, Oakland
County police officers were asked about why they joined the police
force, how they perceived their role, aspects of a good and a bad
police officer, why they believed crime was down, and how they would
describe certain beats in terms of drug availability, crime rates,
socioeconomic status, number of juveniles, potential for violence,
residential versus commercial, and degree of danger. Officers were
also asked about problems particular neighborhoods were experiencing,
strategies for reducing crime, difficulties in doing police work well,
and work conditions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race,
marital status, level of education, and years on the force. In Part 5,
Public Defender/District Attorney Survey Data, public defenders and
district attorneys were queried regarding which offenses were
increasing most rapidly in Oakland, and they were asked to rank
certain offenses in terms of seriousness. Respondents were also asked
about the public's influence on criminal justice agencies and on the
performance of certain criminal justice agencies. Respondents were
presented with a list of crimes and asked how typical these offenses
were and what factors influenced their decisions about such cases
(e.g., intent, motive, evidence, behavior, prior history, injury or
loss, substance abuse, emotional trauma). Other variables measured how
often and under what circumstances the public defender and client and
the public defender and the district attorney agreed on the case,
defendant characteristics in terms of who should not be put on the
stand, the effects of Proposition 8, public defender and district
attorney plea guidelines, attorney discretion, and advantageous and
disadvantageous characteristics of a defendant. Demographic variables
include age, sex, race, marital status, religion, years of experience,
and area of responsibility.

Response Rates:
The completion rate for Part 3 was 64.2 percent.
This was calculated by dividing the total number of interviews by the
total number of telephone numbers put into production, less all
ineligible numbers (including "never answered," "unable to contact,"
and "unable to complete"). Response rates for Parts 4 and 5 are
unknown.

Presence of Common Scales:
Several Likert-type scales were used in Parts 3-5.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.

Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release: 2000-05-17

Version History:

2006-03-30 File CB9961.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.